13 ms·
I read somewhere that most people in the US are definitely not paycheck to paycheck. The article I read claimed it's around 15-20% of the working population.
by osrec 2y ago
I read somewhere that most people in the US are definitely not paycheck to paycheck. The article I read claimed it's around 15-20% of the working population.
- bawolff 2y agohttps://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/09/most-of-americans-are-living-paycheck-to-paycheck-heres-why.html https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/09/most-of-americans-are-living... had 65% but the methodoly seems kind of terrible, your number might be better. Either way, its a significant portion, and even those with more generally don't have the ability to quit their job for 2 years.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- fwipsy 2y agoMaybe you got it from Noahpinion: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/paycheck-to-paycheck-and-five-other https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/paycheck-to-paycheck-and-five-...
- wigster 2y agoover a third in the uk
- camdenreslink 2y agoI saw the same stat, and felt like their definition was too restrictive (basically you had to spend 100% of your income on your bills). Usually a small amount of extra income gets spent and those people are also living paycheck to paycheck for all intents and purposes.
- varjag 2y agoWell that's what paycheck to paycheck means: you barely have the ends meet for essentials. Not that you're zero after topping 401(k) and your yoga classes.
- truckerbill 2y ago<2 months rent p.m. and no savings basically, is a generous definition
- hombre_fatal 2y agoWell, you threw 401k in there for some reason. But living paycheck to paycheck to most people definitely does include spending one’s money on non-bill things like lotto tickets, consumer goods, restaurants, and things beyond their means.
- varjag 2y agoThing is it's absolutely possible to scale up your spending to any income level. And this is indeed what happens with many people, this is how you get these NYT pieces on households struggling on $500k. If you go by this the whole expression is kinda meaningless.
- ghaff 2y agoMaybe not any income level. Well, you can buy Twitter I suppose. But, yes, you can fly Netjets or whatever, buy supercars, have a bunch of personal staff, and eat out at Michelin-starred restaurants on a regular basis. And burn through certainly multiple $100Ks or even 6 figures annually pretty quickly.
- FredPret 2y agoThere was once a billionaire in Brazil who blew it all. Instead of Netjets you can own your own jet(s). Instead of restaurants you can buy them or have the chef come to your house. At the extreme end, you can start a space program. The sky’s the limit!
- ghaff 2y agoYeah. I sometimes feel like I'm being a bit extravagant but it's pretty small-scale in the scheme of things. No interest in multiple homes, yachts, jets, etc. Don't even eat out all that much except when I'm relatively modestly traveling.
- xivzgrev 2y agoThe US Fed came out with a stat a few years ago that 40% of Americans wouldn’t have cash to cover a $400 emergency: they’d have to sell something, borrow, or other. That’s pretty much paycheck to paycheck if your savings are that low.
- ghaff 2y agoAs I recall, there was also some disagreement in discussions over what "having cash" meant. A lot of people have ready access to assets that aren't necessarily literally cash.
- eek2121 2y agoWe have no savings right now (I am not working) and could afford a $400 emergency, but we live paycheck to paycheck. Income is good, the extra just gets spent on various things due to having multiple disabled people in the house. Eventually we hope to rebuild the savings.
- taxman22 2y agoThe question asked how somebody would pay for an unexpected $400 expense. If you answered “credit card” then you were considered to not have the cash to cover an emergency. I’d use a credit card…and pay it off when it’s due.
- dingnuts 2y agoYOU would, but a lot of people with credit cards don't even understand that it's a loan, or what compound interest is. They put the expense on the card and then pay the minimum payment, either until it's paid off with insane interest, or they keep racking up debt until they reach their limit and get a worse card, until they're trapped in a cycle of poverty seriously, everyone in this thread should watch Financial Audit and see how people outside the silicon valley bubble really live. That show has extreme examples to be sure but there are so many people like this
- Aeolun 2y agoI find it hard to sympathize with people that have enough money to pay off their card bills but don’t actually do so because they can’t be bothered to read.
- readams 2y agoIt"s definitely not true https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/paycheck-to-paycheck-and-five-other https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/paycheck-to-paycheck-and-five-...
- bronco21016 2y agoI’ve always understood paycheck to paycheck to describe households that don’t have a buffer. Meaning, if the paychecks suddenly stop, or a sudden large expense, there’s nothing to bridge the gap other than social programs. By this definition, I would imagine a very large number of US households fit the mould.
- browningstreet 2y agoRecent Noahpinion on this… https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/paycheck-to-paycheck-and-five-other https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/paycheck-to-paycheck-and-five-...
- mplewis 2y ago50% of Americans don’t have an emergency fund. That’s paycheck to paycheck.
- jknoepfler 2y agoNo idea how credible the underlying BoA study is, but from [1]: >>> According to our analysis, in 2024, around a quarter of all households fall into this camp, an increase from 2019. They define living paycheck to paycheck as spending 95+% of income on necessities (housing, food, etc.) [1] https://institute.bankofamerica.com/economic-insights/paycheck-to-paycheck-lower-income-households.html https://institute.bankofamerica.com/economic-insights/payche...